Warning about harming career prospects on social media

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21191420

Recruiters across the UK are warning too many young people are risking their career opportunities because of what they post on social network sites.

The Recruitment Society and The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) say most employers now search job candidates online.

Katerina Rudiger from the CIPD says it is important to check your privacy settings on sites like Facebook.

"We all have nights out but it is best not to advertise it," she said.

Simon Bracewell from the Recruitment Society oversees the processing of thousands of applications for graduates, interns and apprentices.

He says he has seen more and more worrying cases.

He said: "I have seen so many of them where people have posted naked pictures."

Kelly Doherty called in sick at work for two days. She said: "My boss phoned me up two days later and asked, 'Did I have a nice time?'

"My workmate had grassed me up and all my pictures were over Facebook.

"I should have set my privacy settings."

The Recruitment Society and CIPD are seeing more cases of inappropriate photos or comments which are public on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Both are warning it is legal for employers to search social media sites.

Provided they do not discriminate on things like race and gender, they can choose not to give you a job based on what they find online.

Tips on avoiding trouble with employers whilst online

1. Check your privacy settings. Keep your private life private.

2. Do have a presence on social networks. If not you may be at a disadvantage.

3. Monitor your channels. Check what friends are posting about you.

4. Maximise the potential - search employers, and connect.

5. Ask "would my mum or gran approve of what I am posting?" If not, don't risk it.



So, if you are prone to getting drunk'n'nekkid, do it in private and don't post the evidence ..... :nono:

[Ramsay]

Silly

[arista]

Silly



No its Normal Now.

[Smithy]

-glad i dont have facebook-

[AnnieK]

I work in recruitment and have temps out and we've had a good few people who have been finished in jobs because they've thrown sickies and then posted on Facebook or been slagging off colleagues. You'd think people would learn but they don't.

[arista]

I work in recruitment and have temps out and we've had a good few people who have been finished in jobs because they've thrown sickies and then posted on Facebook or been slagging off colleagues. You'd think people would learn but they don't.



Yes the magic
of checking up on them.

[Omah]

I work in recruitment and have temps out and we've had a good few people who have been finished in jobs because they've thrown sickies and then posted on Facebook or been slagging off colleagues. You'd think people would learn but they don't.

:laugh2:

[AnnieK]

:laugh2:

:conf:

[Omah]

:conf:

BIB - You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink ..... :)

[Nedusa]

Or take the ultimate privacy setting and stay well away from these types of Social Networking programs ie Facebook,My space,Bebo etc...

Any personal info you upload into any of these sites immediately becomes their property and you have few rights and little say in what happens to this info.

Be warned...!!!!

[Omah]

Or take the ultimate privacy setting and stay well away from these types of Social Networking programs ie Facebook,My space,Bebo etc...

Any personal info you upload into any of these sites immediately becomes their property and you have few rights and little say in what happens to this info.

Be warned...!!!!

Exactly ..... :pipe:

[Livia]

I'm surprised that anyone intelligent enough to be looking for work would be stupid enough not to realise employers would do a websearch on you.

[Kizzy]

I'm a bit torn, why would your employers want to see what you do in your leisure time?
It would be silly to post your thoughts on collegues on fb and It may be embarrassing if they find out...but is it a work issue what you do in your private life?
It's a bit 'thought police' for me.

[AnnieK]

I'm a bit torn, why would your employers want to see what you do in your leisure time?
It would be silly to post your thoughts on collegues on fb and It may be embarrassing if they find out...but is it a work issue what you do in your private life?
It's a bit 'thought police' for me.

Its a work issue if you are "off sick" but posting pictures of you out on the razz...it is fradulently claiming sickness pay I guess. As it is an accessible resource then you can't blame employers looking up profiles - if you have two more or less identical candidates one of which is posting derogatory terms about colleagues and their jobs, who post things like "chucked a sickie today" and one candidate who didn't - who would you employ? Its almost like a reference point....

[Jack_]

Just gonna copy and paste what I posted on the Newsbeat Facebook page the other day about this story since I can't be bothered to type it out again.

How does how you act outside of work at the weekend and in your own personal leisure time bare any relevance to your job and the standard of work you're likely to carry out? Why should how you wish to spend your free time and what you wish to discuss online have any impact on any job/uni place you have applied for? Just because someone may go out and get smashed at the weekend and post it all over Facebook, telling a few risqué jokes in the process, that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to work any less harder than any other applicant. It is rude, based entirely on assumptions and a complete invasion of privacy. And it's only going to lose more and more people jobs and educational places, which with high levels of unemployment is exactly what we want isn't it? How very clever of them.

[Omah]

People who believe that private life doesn't impinge on business life are deluded ..... :pipe:

[Kizzy]

People who believe that private life doesn't impinge on business life are deluded ..... :pipe:

That is not the same as being entitled to a private life....

[Jack_]

People who believe that private life doesn't impinge on business life are deluded ..... :pipe:

I never said it didn't, I said it shouldn't. People who disagree are deluded ..... :pipe:

[Omah]

People who believe that private life doesn't impinge on business life are deluded ..... :pipe:

That is not the same as being entitled to a private life....

It wasn't meant to be ...... it was a riposte to :

Just gonna copy and paste what I posted on the Newsbeat Facebook page the other day about this story since I can't be bothered to type it out again.

How does how you act outside of work at the weekend and in your own personal leisure time bare any relevance to your job and the standard of work you're likely to carry out? Why should how you wish to spend your free time and what you wish to discuss online have any impact on any job/uni place you have applied for? Just because someone may go out and get smashed at the weekend and post it all over Facebook, telling a few risqué jokes in the process, that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to work any less harder than any other applicant. It is rude, based entirely on assumptions and a complete invasion of privacy. And it's only going to lose more and more people jobs and educational places, which with high levels of unemployment is exactly what we want isn't it? How very clever of them.

But I forgot the quote ..... ;)

[Omah]

I never said it didn't, I said it shouldn't. People who disagree are deluded ..... :pipe:

People who believe that private life shouldn't impinge on business life are living more in hope than in expectation ..... :pipe:

[AnnieK]

It is a cut throat world out there now and as stated above if the information is there why would a potential employer NOT use it to aide their recruitment processes....the simple solution is to ensure your privacy settings only allow your friends to view your profile. It is not an invasion of privacy if it it is openly available on the internet. Employers have always undertaken reference procedures, its only another step in this...
I am not saying I agree or disagree just stating the reasons many employers find it a useful tool.

[Jack_]

People who believe that private life shouldn't impinge on business life are living more in hope than in expectation ..... :pipe:

People may sometimes disagree with something, but they can also understand that it's unlikely to change, they can still disagree though :pipe:

Hey we may as well have lived in hope back in the day that one day gender discrimination would no longer be such a prevalent problem, no point in bothering to go against the grain and disagree, let's just follow what we're told to by the almighty powers above. ****** the Suffragette movement eh :pipe:

[Omah]

It is a cut throat world out there now and as stated above if the information is there why would a potential employer NOT use it to aide their recruitment processes....the simple solution is to ensure your privacy settings only allow your friends to view your profile. It is not an invasion of privacy if it it is openly available on the internet. Employers have always undertaken reference procedures, its only another step in this...
I am not saying I agree or disagree just stating the reasons many employers find it a useful tool.

Yeah, cross-checking the personal profile on a CV against an applicant's social media profile can be quite revealing, in more ways than one ..... :laugh2:

[Omah]

People may sometimes disagree with something, but they can also understand that it's unlikely to change, they can still disagree though :pipe:

Hey we may as well have lived in hope back in the day that one day gender discrimination would no longer be such a prevalent problem, no point in bothering to go against the grain and disagree, let's just follow what we're told to by the almighty powers above. ****** the Suffragette movement eh :pipe:

Why are you going off-topic?

:conf:

Suffragettes were mostly women from upper– and middle-class backgrounds, frustrated by their social and economic situation. IIRC, their only social media was pamphlets and placards.

[Jack_]

Yeah, cross-checking the personal profile on a CV against an applicant's social media profile can be quite revealing, in more ways than one ..... :laugh2:

It can also be very damaging. Let's sack someone because they've posted a picture of their night out at the weekend on their own Facebook page! Let's sack them because they've told a joke I don't find funny on their own Twitter account! Yay for unfair dismissal! Yay for increases in unemployment! Yay for a curb of civil liberties! Yay!

[Jack_]

Why are you going off-topic?

:conf:

Suffragettes were mostly women from upper– and middle-class backgrounds, frustrated by their social and economic situation. IIRC, their only social media was pamphlets and placards.

As you said 'People who believe that private life shouldn't impinge on business life are living more in hope than in expectation', implying that I'm not aware of the unlikelihood of anything changing, I was trying to make a point that you can disagree with something, but still understand that despite your point of view it is unlikely to change, but you're still entitled to that view and if you truly believe in it should go out of your way to make sure it is heard.

Gender discrimination was prevalent 100 years ago but women didn't just go 'ah well, we live in hope eh! It'll never change!' :rolleyes:

[Omah]

It can also be very damaging. Let's sack someone because they've posted a picture of their night out at the weekend on their own Facebook page! Let's sack them because they've told a joke I don't find funny on their own Twitter account! Yay for unfair dismissal! Yay for increases in unemployment! Yay for a curb of civil liberties! Yay!

Anyone who places personal material in the public domain has only themselves to blame for the consequences (for better or for worse) ..... :pipe:

[Jack_]

Anyone who places personal material in the public domain has only themselves to blame for the consequences (for better or for worse) ..... :pipe:

Yes, because that makes it acceptable. Let's curb free speech and expression and live in fear of unemployment for what we choose to do in our own personal leisure time. Fantastic idea there Omah, I'm sure it'll improve people's job satisfaction.

Once again you've bypassed all the points and just resorted to 'well that's the rules, I don't make the rules, accept the rules!!!'. :rolleyes:

[Omah]

As you said 'People who believe that private life shouldn't impinge on business life are living more in hope than in expectation', implying that I'm not aware of the unlikelihood of anything changing, I was trying to make a point that you can disagree with something, but still understand that despite your point of view it is unlikely to change, but you're still entitled to that view and if you truly believe in it should go out of your way to make sure it is heard.

You're going off-topic.

:nono:

The Recruitment Society and CIPD are seeing more cases of inappropriate photos or comments which are public on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Both are warning it is legal for employers to search social media sites.

Provided they do not discriminate on things like race and gender, they can choose not to give you a job based on what they find online.

Both groups also say you need to be careful once in work.

They are concerned some people don't realise they can be sacked if they post negative comments about their company.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen (i.e. don't go public)..... :pipe:

[Omah]

Yes, because that makes it acceptable. Let's curb free speech and expression and live in fear of unemployment for what we choose to do in our own personal leisure time. Fantastic idea there Omah, I'm sure it'll improve people's job satisfaction.

Once again you've bypassed all the points and just resorted to 'well that's the rules, I don't make the rules, accept the rules!!!'. :rolleyes:

You're persistently trying to hijack this thread ..... :bored:

[Jack_]

You're going off-topic.

:nono:

Because of course you weren't dragging the thread away from a serious, mature and reasonable discussion when you threw in the word 'deluded' to describe someone's views were you? :rolleyes:

You're persistently trying to hijack this thread ..... :bored:

What? I'm hijacking a thread by posting my opinion on it? Is that not the point of 'Serious Debates', to discuss the issue from different perspectives?

[Joseline]

Someone tumblred my pussy, never been more popular.

[Omah]

Because of course you weren't dragging the thread away from a serious, mature and reasonable discussion when you threw in the word 'deluded' to describe someone's views were you? :rolleyes:



What? I'm hijacking a thread by posting my opinion on it? Is that not the point of 'Serious Debates', to discuss the issue from different perspectives?

Now you're "baiting" ..... :rolleyes:

[Jack_]

Now you're "baiting" ..... :rolleyes:

Again, the only baiting was you calling my opinion 'deluded' with a sarcastic emoticon to boot, that's obviously going to provoke a reaction.

What was wrong with responding to my points with a counter-argument? This is an interesting subject, there's no need for petty digs.

Can a mod please clean this thread removing all the digs at each other? This is just silly on both of our parts, I'd actually quite like to see where this thread goes properly.

[Black Dagger]

So will I never have a job now because on Twitter I have the tendancy to tell people to die in arguments :sad:

[Me. I Am Salman]

I should stop threatening celebrities on Twitter

[Livia]

It can also be very damaging. Let's sack someone because they've posted a picture of their night out at the weekend on their own Facebook page! Let's sack them because they've told a joke I don't find funny on their own Twitter account! Yay for unfair dismissal! Yay for increases in unemployment! Yay for a curb of civil liberties! Yay!

If you've got ten applicants for one job, you're going to make sure you're going to choose the one who's not paralytic every weekend, who doesn't badmouth colleagues and throw sickies and then write about it on their Facebook page, which is in the public domain so is not, therefore, private. If someone's not bright enough to know that, I wouldn't want them working for me. If you're doing to demand free speech, you can't expect it to be considered private if it is in a public place. If you don't want people to read what you're saying, or look at your dodgy photos, sort out your privacy settings. It's that simple.

Yay for the most reliable and intelligent person for the job actually getting the job.

[Black Dagger]

I should stop threatening celebrities on Twitter

When you told that Daily Star journalist to fall down a well :lovedup:

[AnnieK]

If you've got ten applicants for one job, you're going to make sure you're going to choose the one who's not paralytic every weekend, who doesn't badmouth colleagues and throw sickies and then write about it on their Facebook page, which is in the public domain so is not, therefore, private. If someone's not bright enough to know that, I wouldn't want them working for me. If you're doing to demand free speech, you can't expect it to be considered private if it is in a public place. If you don't want people to read what you're saying, or look at your dodgy photos, sort out your privacy settings. It's that simple.

Yay for the most reliable and intelligent person for the job actually getting the job.

Totally agree. Companies, particularly small companies invest a lot in a new recruit so they have every right to research and make balanced judgements from available media in order safeguard their investment.

[Kizzy]

And always remember...BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

[Ramsay]

Jack is right

[Jack_]

If you've got ten applicants for one job, you're going to make sure you're going to choose the one who's not paralytic every weekend, who doesn't badmouth colleagues and throw sickies and then write about it on their Facebook page, which is in the public domain so is not, therefore, private. If someone's not bright enough to know that, I wouldn't want them working for me. If you're doing to demand free speech, you can't expect it to be considered private if it is in a public place. If you don't want people to read what you're saying, or look at your dodgy photos, sort out your privacy settings. It's that simple.

Yay for the most reliable and intelligent person for the job actually getting the job.

First of all I want to make a distinction between those with a publicly open Facebook profile and those with privacy settings turned on. Whilst I still don't agree with using people's personal lives as means of picking a suitable employee for those with publicly open profiles, I have much less sympathy than those who have private profiles yet somehow still end up feeling the repercussions of what should be their personal free leisure time. This does happen I believe, I'm sure I have read and heard stories of highly trained IT professionals being employed by companies and universities to bypass security settings on social networking sites in order to spy on potential candidates/existing workers. That, as far as I'm concerned, is totally out of order.

I also don't agree with this supposed correlation between going out and getting paralytic and being unreliable or unsuitable for work. Plenty of people are more than capable of turning up Monday to Friday, working 9 until 5 to the best of their abilities and to the satisfaction of their employers, and then going out on the town on Friday night getting absolutely wasted and off their face, before returning to work on Monday right as reign as if nothing has happened. This assumption (and that's all it is) by employers, and indeed anyone else who believes so, that having wild nights out on the tiles in people's leisure time, that they are entitled to spend as they wish, means that they won't be suitable for a job is just insulting.

If people are slogging it all week, they deserve a break, and are perfectly entitled to spend that break as they wish. I do not see how it is the business of anyone else but their own, so long as they still perform well day-to-day in their job. They also deserve not to be judged on, or have assumptions made from actions which are totally of no relevance to their bosses.

[Tom4784]

If you're stupid enough to throw a sicky and then post about it on Facebook then you deserve to be sacked for being a ****ing moron.

I don't see the benefit of having your profile enabled for public viewing, It's just asking for it to be used against you and there's no benefits for you in the long run.

[Livia]

First of all I want to make a distinction between those with a publicly open Facebook profile and those with privacy settings turned on. Whilst I still don't agree with using people's personal lives as means of picking a suitable employee for those with publicly open profiles, I have much less sympathy than those who have private profiles yet somehow still end up feeling the repercussions of what should be their personal free leisure time. This does happen I believe, I'm sure I have read and heard stories of highly trained IT professionals being employed by companies and universities to bypass security settings on social networking sites in order to spy on potential candidates/existing workers. That, as far as I'm concerned, is totally out of order.

I also don't agree with this supposed correlation between going out and getting paralytic and being unreliable or unsuitable for work. Plenty of people are more than capable of turning up Monday to Friday, working 9 until 5 to the best of their abilities and to the satisfaction of their employers, and then going out on the town on Friday night getting absolutely wasted and off their face, before returning to work on Monday right as reign as if nothing has happened. This assumption (and that's all it is) by employers, and indeed anyone else who believes so, that having wild nights out on the tiles in people's leisure time, that they are entitled to spend as they wish, means that they won't be suitable for a job is just insulting.

If people are slogging it all week, they deserve a break, and are perfectly entitled to spend that break as they wish. I do not see how it is the business of anyone else but their own, so long as they still perform well day-to-day in their job. They also deserve not to be judged on, or have assumptions made from actions which are totally of no relevance to their bosses.

I take it from all you've said that you're not actually an employer, and haven't been for that many job interviews recently.

I don't know anything about getting people to hack into accounts to get information. That's not what we're discussing here and it is, as far as I know, illegal.

It's an employers market. If an employer has to choose between a load of applicants then those applicants will be judged on a whole host of things: what they wear, what they say, their personal grooming, how they present themselves, how they sit in the in interview, eye contact, what's on their CV... and what's publicly available to view on their Facebook page.

If you were going to pay someone to work for you, I think you'd probably want to employ someone who is most likely to turn up on Monday morning and not have the rest of the staff pick up the slack when they're inevitably too hung over to come to work. That would be my assumption if there were lots of drunken pictures and silly comments available for the whole world to access. If you're going to demand freedom of speech, don't expect not to be judged on it.

[Omah]

If you've got ten applicants for one job, you're going to make sure you're going to choose the one who's not paralytic every weekend, who doesn't badmouth colleagues and throw sickies and then write about it on their Facebook page, which is in the public domain so is not, therefore, private. If someone's not bright enough to know that, I wouldn't want them working for me. If you're doing to demand free speech, you can't expect it to be considered private if it is in a public place. If you don't want people to read what you're saying, or look at your dodgy photos, sort out your privacy settings. It's that simple.

Yay for the most reliable and intelligent person for the job actually getting the job.

Totally agree. Companies, particularly small companies invest a lot in a new recruit so they have every right to research and make balanced judgements from available media in order safeguard their investment.

Yeah, employers pay employees, not the other way round, so they're looking for a return for their outlay - drunken weekend wasters do themselves no favours by advertising their immaturity ..... :pipe:

If, on the other hand, a local church, hospital or football club favourably mentions an applicant "in dispatches" on social media then that applicant is "quids-in" with most employers ..... :idc:

[KingBilly]

If I ever want to follow my porn dreams I should stop.

[sassysocks]

Just gonna copy and paste what I posted on the Newsbeat Facebook page the other day about this story since I can't be bothered to type it out again.

How does how you act outside of work at the weekend and in your own personal leisure time bare any relevance to your job and the standard of work you're likely to carry out? Why should how you wish to spend your free time and what you wish to discuss online have any impact on any job/uni place you have applied for? Just because someone may go out and get smashed at the weekend and post it all over Facebook, telling a few risqué jokes in the process, that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to work any less harder than any other applicant. It is rude, based entirely on assumptions and a complete invasion of privacy. And it's only going to lose more and more people jobs and educational places, which with high levels of unemployment is exactly what we want isn't it? How very clever of them.

Or how clever of those who post such info about themselves on these sites - and not realising that many will, unsurprisingly, judge them on how they behave in their own time. It is a fact of life - and those that ignore it do so at their peril, with no room for complaint when it blows up in their faces.

[MTVN]

Think I have my Facebook on private so should have nothing to worry about, they mess around with their settings so much I'm never really sure though

Heard quite a bit about these University Confession pages that have popped up on FB last few months could damage your prospects as well, our Uni had our one taken down

[the truth]

how do u a ctually closae a facebook account?

[Ninastar]

fair enough I think

more so because I work with kids though. I have to be careful with what I say on facebook about work because anyone can find it really. People can comment on that status and they might be friends with someone who goes to the nursery, so they can end up seeing it and getting upset etc...

[Ninastar]

Also, Livia :love: once again

[Niall]

I'm in two minds over all this. I mean, I can understand the whole sacking of people that slate colleagues or post about sickies etc on social media, but I don't really like the idea of basing a decision on who gets the job over how dubious their posts are. It sounds a bit too judgemental. (But then again, all that can be easily avoided if you use the proper privacy settings (which the vast majority of morons do not).)

If they started checking to see if people have Tumblr and what their posts are like on there though then I would be royally screwed however so I'm just glad that isn't happening just yet.

[InOne]

http://www.lamebook.com/fired-via-facebook/

Classic example of idiocy if it's real.

[Omah]

huffingtonpost.co.uk - January 25, 2013

A huge 91% of employers use LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook to screen candidates. A further:
• 13% rejected a candidate because they lied about their qualifications
• 11% rejected a candidate because they posted inappropriate comments
• The same amount rejected a candidate because they posted inappropriate photos, with another 11% rejecting applicants because of posting negative comments about a previous employer
• 10% were rejected for posting content about them using drugs, while 9% were rejected for posting content about them drinking

With so many applicants for jobs, posting any of the above (even with privacy control) is foolhardy in the extreme.

:pipe:

[Omah]

http://www.lamebook.com/fired-via-facebook/

Classic example of idiocy if it's real.

Love it ..... :laugh2:

[Jack_]

I take it from all you've said that you're not actually an employer, and haven't been for that many job interviews recently.

I don't know anything about getting people to hack into accounts to get information. That's not what we're discussing here and it is, as far as I know, illegal.

It's an employers market. If an employer has to choose between a load of applicants then those applicants will be judged on a whole host of things: what they wear, what they say, their personal grooming, how they present themselves, how they sit in the in interview, eye contact, what's on their CV... and what's publicly available to view on their Facebook page.

If you were going to pay someone to work for you, I think you'd probably want to employ someone who is most likely to turn up on Monday morning and not have the rest of the staff pick up the slack when they're inevitably too hung over to come to work. That would be my assumption if there were lots of drunken pictures and silly comments available for the whole world to access. If you're going to demand freedom of speech, don't expect not to be judged on it.

Not entirely sure what relevance that has to my argument or indeed how it would devalue it in any way regardless of the answer.

And again, yet more assumptions. Just because someone goes out at the weekend and gets absolutely batfaced it does not necessarily have any correlation with their work related performance. People are perfectly able to separate the two and have been doing for many years, just because social networking sites have now come along and given employers yet another avenue by which to judge, outcast and make assumptions on you that doesn't suddenly mean that someone can't have wild weekends yet be Employee of the Month. It's all assumptions and it's grossly unfair.

If and when an employee turned up to work hungover, drunk, or their performance began to slip, then perhaps their personal life could be brought to task and disciplinary action could be handed out, just as before. Second-guessing what potential employees might do, or sacking people for having a good time on their weekend off is just of order.

huffingtonpost.co.uk - January 25, 2013



With so many applicants for jobs, posting any of the above (even with privacy control) is foolhardy in the extreme.

:pipe:

Don't you just love youth unemployment and things which make it worse :)

[Omah]

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/workplace.pdf

A survey carried out in December 2007 for Norwich Union Healthcare found a third of employees admitting to having been to work with a hangover. 15% reported having been drunk at work. One in ten employees reported hangovers at work once a month, one in twenty once a week. Work problems resulting from hangovers or being drunk at work included difficulty concentrating; reduced productivity; tiredness and mistakes. The majority (77%) of employers interviewed for this survey identified alcohol as a major threat to employee wellbeing and a factor encouraging sickness absence.

Absenteeism from work through alcohol misuse costs the economy about £1.5bn
• It is generally acknowledged that people with alcohol-related problems have
increased rates of sickness absence from work.
• The value of lost output during sickness has long been regarded as one of the main costs to the economy of alcohol misuse.
• In 2001, across the whole UK workforce, over 176m working days were lost as a result of absenteeism. Between 6 per cent and 15 per cent of this aggregate figure can be attributed to alcohol-related sickness.
• In total, alcohol-related sickness absence is estimated to cost between £1.2bn and £1.8bn, with a middle estimate of approximately £1.5bn.

No employer wants the cost of hiring and then firing a known heavy/binge drinker ..... :nono:

Forewarned is forearmed ..... :pipe:

[Kizzy]

A couple of party pics are enough to label someone a workshy, useless alcoholic now are they?

[Omah]

A couple of party pics are enough to label someone a workshy, useless alcoholic now are they?

Not necessarily, but if an applicant has spent the last year "partying" every weekend and posting the results on FB then I think it's fair to say that he or she may well have "lost" a few Monday mornings ..... :idc:

I certainly did - and a few Tuesdays, too, but that was then (it only became public if you got arrested) and this is now (it's public as soon as it hits the wires or the waves) ..... :amazed:

So, if they can't shape up, they better ship out ..... :pipe:

[the truth]

I know of people who have either been sacked as a direct result of facebook postings or failed to get a particular job. its way more tnan 10% getting vetted too....the behaviour of people on there does expose the moral standards of some people and is more than enough to scare employers away

[Jack_]

It's also worth noting that Facebook isn't necessarily as much of an accurate representation of people as they'd like us to believe and often we believe it is too. Social networking sites allow people to represent themselves in whatever way they wish, you can be whoever you want online. You control what's uploaded, if you don't like a picture - it doesn't go up. It's up to you what things you talk about, like, post etc. It's a very one-sided operation in the sense that we all have the ability to shape our online profiles in a way that we want to represent ourselves, and that is not necessarily a true reflection of one's character, for better or worse. So in one mind you may wish to represent yourself as this outgoing, borderline alcoholic party animal when in fact most of the time you're quite the opposite and are very career driven - but of course that doesn't necessarily make a very interesting profile does it. I question whether using social networking sites as means of seeing someone's 'true self' is a useful tool or not.

Not necessarily, but if an applicant has spent the last year "partying" every weekend and posting the results on FB then I think it's fair to say that he or she may well have "lost" a few Monday mornings ..... :idc:

I certainly did - and a few Tuesdays, too, but that was then (it only became public if you got arrested) and this is now (it's public as soon as it hits the wires or the waves) ..... :amazed:

So, if they can't shape up, they better ship out ..... :pipe:

I see - so one rule for you, and another rule for this generation because of social networking sites. And a few more assumptions about the correlation between drinking and work ethic, tied in with how you lost a 'few Monday mornings' as well. Perfect.

I do hope you enjoy footing part of the tax bill to subsidise these people's unemployment. Because when they're sacked, that's what they become.

[Omah]

I know of people who have either been sacked as a direct result of facebook postings or failed to get a particular job. its way more tnan 10% getting vetted too....the behaviour of people on there does expose the moral standards of some people and is more than enough to scare employers away

Yeah, people getting "batarsed" every weekend and then expecting the world to condone such behaviour and pay them buckets of money just for (mostly) turning up at the office/shop/factory, etc ..... well, not any more ..... :hmph:

[Jack_]

Yeah, people getting "batarsed" every weekend and then expecting the world to condone such behaviour and pay them buckets of money just for (mostly)turning up at the office/shop/factory, etc ..... well, not any more ..... :hmph:

Ah yes that's it, discredit some classic working class jobs in the process why don't you. As if they aren't already looked down upon already.

Why is it that people feel the need to go out and get wasted in the first place? Why are people seemingly so miserable that they feel the need to forget everything at the weekend by getting as intoxicated as possible? Perhaps if we as a society answer that question and provide a resolution to it, then we'd be in a much better state, no?

Here's a theory - perhaps the state of the economy, the increasing demonisation of the unemployed, low-skilled workers and the welfare dependant, as well as the rising gap between the rich and poor combined with those at the bottom of the social scale lacking the means to break out of the cycle - can explain antisocial behaviour and drug and alcohol problems? Maybe they're so ****ing fed up of being lambasted by those at the top that they rebel and/or turn to drink, drugs and crime as a coping method. Just an idea.

Or of course, maybe they're just feral alcoholic worthless degenerate rats that should be thrown to wolves...as the media would have you believe.

[Kizzy]

Yeah, people getting "batarsed" every weekend and then expecting the world to condone such behaviour and pay them buckets of money just for (mostly) turning up at the office/shop/factory, etc ..... well, not any more ..... :hmph:

Well you yourself have admitted to being 'batarsed' do you deserve to spend years on the dole regardless of your education, training and experience?
This whole thing is ludicrous.
Good job the 'Bullingdon club' lot didn't have a facebook isn't it?.....

[Omah]

Well you yourself have admitted to being 'batarsed' do you deserve to spend years on the dole regardless of your education, training and experience?


Times change - steelworkers were once paid to drink pints of beer "on the job" - now there's no steel industry, works, jobs or drinking "on the job" ..... :sad:

On the up-side, nearly all jobs in the UK today are simple, safe and clean - there's just not enough of them to go round, so those who want to work should conform to employers expectations and not expect to get a job because they've got a vocational degree ..... :pipe:

Good job the 'Bullingdon club' lot didn't have a facebook isn't it?.....

Exactly ..... :laugh3:

To return to the topic :

Recruiters across the UK are warning too many young people are risking their career opportunities because of what they post on social network sites.

The Recruitment Society and The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) say most employers now search job candidates online.

Katerina Rudiger from the CIPD says it is important to check your privacy settings on sites like Facebook.

"We all have nights out but it is best not to advertise it," she said.

Don't boast it, don't post it ..... ;)

[the truth]

Ah yes that's it, discredit some classic working class jobs in the process why don't you. As if they aren't already looked down upon already.

Why is it that people feel the need to go out and get wasted in the first place? Why are people seemingly so miserable that they feel the need to forget everything at the weekend by getting as intoxicated as possible? Perhaps if we as a society answer that question and provide a resolution to it, then we'd be in a much better state, no?

Here's a theory - perhaps the state of the economy, the increasing demonisation of the unemployed, low-skilled workers and the welfare dependant, as well as the rising gap between the rich and poor combined with those at the bottom of the social scale lacking the means to break out of the cycle - can explain antisocial behaviour and drug and alcohol problems? Maybe they're so ****ing fed up of being lambasted by those at the top that they rebel and/or turn to drink, drugs and crime as a coping method. Just an idea.

Or of course, maybe they're just feral alcoholic worthless degenerate rats that should be thrown to wolves...as the media would have you believe.

self pity will get them nowhere..take a look at the paralympics, those legends can run swim and cycle at top speed with missing bodyparts, yet some people with bad attitudes cant even get up and educate themselves to get a job.

[Jack_]

self pity will get them nowhere..take a look at the paralympics, those legends can run swim and cycle at top speed with missing bodyparts, yet some people with bad attitudes cant even get up and educate themselves to get a job.

And how large is this 'some people' you speak of as a proportion of the population? 10%? 1%? Or more likely...0.1%?

In other words, a very small minority.

[Omah]

self pity will get them nowhere..take a look at the paralympics, those legends can run swim and cycle at top speed with missing bodyparts, yet some people with bad attitudes cant even get up and educate themselves to get a job.

Yeah, chips on shoulders the size of barn doors, some on'em ..... :pipe:

[AnnieK]

One of the biggest reasons that employers have turned to social media to screen candidates is due to the fact that they used to use normal referencing procedures where they would contact the previous employer for details of work ethic, sickness, attitude to colleagues etc etc (there was never a debate on the fairness of that). However in this litigious world we live in where people sue people, companies are now that scared of revealing any derogatory information that the standard reference now just confirms dates worked and job title. No useful information at all so employers are forced to look at other avenues to gain information about prospective employees before they spend £1000s on recruiting.

Jack you mentioned footing the bill for youth unemployment? Do you know how much sick days cost the economy on an annual basis - according to the CBI around £17 billion with £3billion being taken dishonestly. That figure is footed by companies who are already teetering on administration and liquidation in some circumstances with numerous jobs in the balance. Can you blame them for checking people out before they employ them?

[Ammi]

..I have mixed feelings about this..I’m not really affected in this way but I do have restrictions about Facebook, which for me means I choose not to have it at all...although I do believe in free speech, I also think that nothing is really totally free and you can put pics of nights out or whatever on facebook/internet...but you have to accept that there might be consequences in certain areas..whether that’s right or wrong doesn’t really matter because it’s a fact and the rest is just subjective...it doesn’t mean that you can’t do a perfectly good job in your employment, if you happen to like to have a Friday night on the town..but some employers may decide it reveals something about you..you can never stop people having opinions/making judgements, with or without the internet..., so that’s something that every person has to decide when they put information on Facebook...there are a lot of employments where it probably wouldn’t matter, but there are also some where it would....and that’s for you to know whether you think it could be judged for your chosen employment....

..I think if we accept all of the positives about the internet/facebook etc , of which there are many..we also have to accept that maybe there’ll be some negatives as well, not just the extreme 'sinister' ones but things like this..and if we want to be ‘totally free’ in what we say/do...well, they might just affect us....

[Me. I Am Salman]

I was reading some article the other week about how Twitter has changed over the years and it said something about the first person to be fired for a tweet they made was in 2006, so it's nothing new

[Livia]

Not entirely sure what relevance that has to my argument or indeed how it would devalue it in any way regardless of the answer.

And again, yet more assumptions. Just because someone goes out at the weekend and gets absolutely batfaced it does not necessarily have any correlation with their work related performance. People are perfectly able to separate the two and have been doing for many years, just because social networking sites have now come along and given employers yet another avenue by which to judge, outcast and make assumptions on you that doesn't suddenly mean that someone can't have wild weekends yet be Employee of the Month. It's all assumptions and it's grossly unfair.

If and when an employee turned up to work hungover, drunk, or their performance began to slip, then perhaps their personal life could be brought to task and disciplinary action could be handed out, just as before. Second-guessing what potential employees might do, or sacking people for having a good time on their weekend off is just of order.




Well actually, you not being an employer or someone who has been for many interviews recently is extremely relevant to the issue. Of course you can still have an opinion, but it'd be like you coming on here getting all outraged about changes to the MOT when you don't own a car.

You do not have a right to a job. If youth unemployment is a huge issue for you, you should be thinking about the ways to impress an employer, not expect him make exceptions for you because you can't control yourself (I obviously don't mean you personally here...). If you want the job, put your settings on private. If you don't mind the world seeing what you're up to... leave your privacy settings as they are, but don't moan when people look at your page to see what kind of person you are, what kind of character you have and whether they want to pay you to represent their company. If they want to go out at the weekend and "get totally batfaced" then that's their choice. If they're smart they won't write about it on Facebook or it'll come back to bite them on the arse. As I said before, if you want free speech, you have to take the downside too.

Ninastar mentions she works with children and she is fully aware she would have to be careful about what she puts on Facebook. That's because she's smart. She didn't say that she's going to live her whole life being an angel. (although obviously... you are Ninastar).

Once someone's employed there's a whole raft of laws protecting them. It's much easier to weed out the potential problems before you start paying them money every month and save yourself the trouble of disciplinary panels, warnings and ultimately a tribunal. Employ the best person for the job at the start and use every tool available to make your choice.

[Jack_]

Well actually, you not being an employer or someone who has been for many interviews recently is extremely relevant to the issue. Of course you can still have an opinion, but it'd be like you coming on here getting all outraged about changes to the MOT when you don't own a car.

You do not have a right to a job. If youth unemployment is a huge issue for you, you should be thinking about the ways to impress an employer, not expect him make exceptions for you because you can't control yourself (I obviously don't mean you personally here...). If you want the job, put your settings on private. If you don't mind the world seeing what you're up to... leave your privacy settings as they are, but don't moan when people look at your page to see what kind of person you are, what kind of character you have and whether they want to pay you to represent their company. If they want to go out at the weekend and "get totally batfaced" then that's their choice. If they're smart they won't write about it on Facebook or it'll come back to bite them on the arse. As I said before, if you want free speech, you have to take the downside too.

Ninastar mentions she works with children and she is fully aware she would have to be careful about what she puts on Facebook. That's because she's smart. She didn't say that she's going to live her whole life being an angel. (although obviously... you are Ninastar).

Once someone's employed there's a whole raft of laws protecting them. It's much easier to weed out the potential problems before you start paying them money every month and save yourself the trouble of disciplinary panels, warnings and ultimately a tribunal. Employ the best person for the job at the start and use every tool available to make your choice.

I guess then that begs the question, if having little experience of something invalidates your opinion, why is it that MP's are so often commenting on and making policies for people that they have absolutely no contact and experiences with? If the people running this country are going to pass judgement on things they have next to no experience of, I may as well myself. That's also like saying a straight person's opinion on gay marriage isn't as valid as they aren't gay themselves and so couldn't fully understand.

I never said anyone has a right to a job, but hey, surely it's better for everyone to be in one, no? If we're just going to go about sacking people willy nilly and putting more power in the hands of employers, organisations and the market, especially when there's unemployment problems in this country, then as long as tax payers are happy footing the bill for their welfare support, I'm all for it. Sack people or refuse people jobs for posting questionable material on their personal online profiles all you want, but you're only going to give yourself more problems in the end.

On the point of employers looking at your Facebook page to see who 'you really are', I refer you to a post I made a bit earlier in the thread about how I question whether social networking sites actually are an accurate representation of one's true self, character and personality, for better or worse. I'm not entirely convinced a few static images and lines of text on a web page can truly reflect what somebody is like as a person in real life, or, more importantly - an employee.

[Omah]

Well actually, you not being an employer or someone who has been for many interviews recently is extremely relevant to the issue. Of course you can still have an opinion, but it'd be like you coming on here getting all outraged about changes to the MOT when you don't own a car.

So true ..... :thumbs:

:laugh:

[Jack_]

Ah, the wonders of not responding to arguments someone's presented you with, but happily quoting other people's responses to the same person. Funny eh :)

[Kizzy]

I guess then that begs the question, if having little experience of something invalidates your opinion, why is it that MP's are so often commenting on and making policies for people that they have absolutely no contact and experiences with? If the people running this country are going to pass judgement on things they have next to no experience of, I may as well myself. That's also like saying a straight person's opinion on gay marriage isn't as valid as they aren't gay themselves and so couldn't fully understand..

good point!


On the point of employers looking at your Facebook page to see who 'you really are', I refer you to a post I made a bit earlier in the thread about how I question whether social networking sites actually are an accurate representation of one's true self, character and personality, for better or worse. I'm not entirely convinced a few static images and lines of text on a web page can truly reflect what somebody is like as a person in real life, or, more importantly - an employee.


Exactly, go to uni for 3 years end up in thousands of pounds in debt, and not get a job because some twonk in IT saw pics you were tagged in you drunk at your cousins wedding?

[Livia]

I guess then that begs the question, if having little experience of something invalidates your opinion, why is it that MP's are so often commenting on and making policies for people that they have absolutely no contact and experiences with? If the people running this country are going to pass judgement on things they have next to no experience of, I may as well myself. That's also like saying a straight person's opinion on gay marriage isn't as valid as they aren't gay themselves and so couldn't fully understand.

I never said anyone has a right to a job, but hey, surely it's better for everyone to be in one, no? If we're just going to go about sacking people willy nilly and putting more power in the hands of employers, organisations and the market, especially when there's unemployment problems in this country, then as long as tax payers are happy footing the bill for their welfare support, I'm all for it. Sack people or refuse people jobs for posting questionable material on their personal online profiles all you want, but you're only going to give yourself more problems in the end.

On the point of employers looking at your Facebook page to see who 'you really are', I refer you to a post I made a bit earlier in the thread about how I question whether social networking sites actually are an accurate representation of one's true self, character and personality, for better or worse. I'm not entirely convinced a few static images and lines of text on a web page can truly reflect what somebody is like as a person in real life, or, more importantly - an employee.

Yeah, that's not the same thing. MPs have advisors, they don't go into something cold like you're doing here. You have a valid opinion. Unfortunately that opinion flags up that you really don't know too much about it, you're knee-jerking.

Of course it's better for everyone to be in a job. But I'm not going to employ a dedicated party boy if I've got a more serious, studious candidate. That's the bottom line. And as Omah said earlier, a Facebook page can also work for you, and if you're smart you'll understand that too.

You're going way over the top on this one Jack. All you have to do is set your privacy setting, but you think that's too much to ask. I'd like to have this conversation with you when you are older and have a bit more life experience, have had a few interviews and maybe even sat on an interview panel or two. Until then, you're just crusading about this without really knowing too much about it. So as I've said all I have to say on the subject, I'll leave it there.

[Omah]

Yeah, that's not the same thing. MPs have advisors, they don't go into something cold like you're doing here. You have a valid opinion. Unfortunately that opinion flags up that you really don't know too much about it, you're knee-jerking.

Of course it's better for everyone to be in a job. But I'm not going to employ a dedicated party boy if I've got a more serious, studious candidate. That's the bottom line. And as Omah said earlier, a Facebook page can also work for you, and if you're smart you'll understand that too.

You're going way over the top on this one Jack. All you have to do is set your privacy setting, but you think that's too much to ask. I'd like to have this conversation with you when you are older and have a bit more life experience, have had a few interviews and maybe even sat on an interview panel or two. Until then, you're just crusading about this without really knowing too much about it. So as I've said all I have to say on the subject, I'll leave it there.

I agree with everything you've said ..... :pipe:

[Kizzy]

What do advisors know, what experience have they got? About as much as MP's.
It is wrong to make judgements on the work ethic of an individual due to pictures of them in their leisure time.
that is my main issue, i don't believe for one second that it can be used as a guage to assess good character.
It is what it is, a gross invasion into the private lives of individuals.
To take an employer to a tribunal you must have had 2yrs employment, if you were such a feckless party animal would that not have been evident in that time?

[Jack_]

Exactly, go to uni for 3 years end up in thousands of pounds in debt, and not get a job because some twonk in IT saw pics you were tagged in you drunk at your cousins wedding?

Precisely. To believe that's an accurate reflection of someone's true self is ludicrous to be quite honest. Delusional even.

Maybe I have got it all wrong though and indeed the majority of people on Facebook spend 95% of their lives off their faces having pictures taken of them sh*tting in club toilets around the world. Because pictures tell the whole story don't they?

Yeah, that's not the same thing. MPs have advisors, they don't go into something cold like you're doing here. You have a valid opinion. Unfortunately that opinion flags up that you really don't know too much about it, you're knee-jerking.

Of course it's better for everyone to be in a job. But I'm not going to employ a dedicated party boy if I've got a more serious, studious candidate. That's the bottom line. And as Omah said earlier, a Facebook page can also work for you, and if you're smart you'll understand that too.

You're going way over the top on this one Jack. All you have to do is set your privacy setting, but you think that's too much to ask. I'd like to have this conversation with you when you are older and have a bit more life experience, have had a few interviews and maybe even sat on an interview panel or two. Until then, you're just crusading about this without really knowing too much about it. So as I've said all I have to say on the subject, I'll leave it there.

Because of course their advisors are totally unbiased, impartial and don't have any links with multinational organisations and/or media institutions.

Again - how does a few pictures of someone drunk on a social networking site mean they're now a bonafide 'party boy'? Forget actually getting to know their true self in real life and in the workplace, or monitoring their progress if they're already in work, let's judge them on a few pictures of them out with their friends at the weekend. Sack the alcoholics! And ah yes that's it, start patronising and belittling people when there's nothing else to respond with. The classic approach :)

I agree with everything you've said ..... :pipe:

Are you actually going to respond to any of the arguments I presented you with in this thread or are you just going to continue to take words and phrases from my posts and spin them into bitchy little comments, and quote others that have replied to me in an attempt to discretely bait as well?

[Omah]

It is wrong to make judgements on the work ethic of an individual due to pictures of them in their leisure time.
that is my main issue, i don't believe for one second that it can be used as a guage to assess good character.
It is what it is, a gross invasion into the private lives of individuals.

It's up to the individual to set their privacy settings - if they haven't got the common sense to do that (or find out how to do it) then they're not much use to any employer ..... :nono:

If there's no "evidence" in the public domain, there's no problem - no pictures, no judgement ..... :pipe:

[Jack_]

:pipe:

[Kizzy]

It's up to the individual to set their privacy settings - if they haven't got the common sense to do that (or find out how to do it) then they're not much use to any employer ..... :nono:

If there's no "evidence" in the public domain, there's no problem - no pictures, no judgement ..... :pipe:

That's not the issue though is it?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of this practice.

[AnnieK]

This has gotten out of hand and way beyond the realms of the debate really. An employer is not going to sack someone because of random pictures. It is merely to do with having two candidates applying for the same job, both have the exact same qualifications, experience and skills. Candidate a posts on an open Facebook profile that they have had a large weekend, got pissed, took drugs so can feel a sickie coming on on Monday. Hates his ****ing job anyway they are all wankers. Candidate B does exactly the same at the weekend but doesn't post on Facebook it has privacy settings switched on. Employer can't decide between the two candidates so has a bit of a surf. Comes across candidate as Facebook profile, alarm bells ring employs candidate b. Who can blame them??

[Kizzy]

This has gotten out of hand and way beyond the realms of the debate really. An employer is not going to sack someone because of random pictures. It is merely to do with having two candidates applying for the same job, both have the exact same qualifications, experience and skills. Candidate a posts on an open Facebook profile that they have had a large weekend, got pissed, took drugs so can feel a sickie coming on on Monday. Hates his ****ing job anyway they are all wankers. Candidate B does exactly the same at the weekend but doesn't post on Facebook it has privacy settings switched on. Employer can't decide between the two candidates so has a bit of a surf. Comes across candidate as Facebook profile, alarm bells ring employs candidate b. Who can blame them??

why?...
has anyone said anything offensive or derogatory... There are accusations that companies are paying IT professionals to hack into fb accounts to retrieve information, do you agree with this also?

[AnnieK]

why?...
has anyone said anything offensive or derogatory... There are accusations that companies are paying IT professionals to hack into fb accounts to retrieve information, do you agree with this also?

No because they are allegations kizzy. I work with many large organisations, am a member of various recruitment bodies etc and have never heard of any such practices ever. It's getting out of hand as people are suggesting people are getting sacked for posting photos of nights out and that is not the basis of the original post it is about damaging job prospects. As I have posted earlier dishonest sick days cost the economy £3 bn so employers naturally have to try to protect themselves.

[Ammi]

..anyone can look at public information on Facebook and make a ‘judgement’ if they want to..it doesn’t have to be a prospective employer and people do make judgements all the time, whether thet’re accurate or not..on hairstyles, clothes etc, whether it is relevant or not, judgements are made on lots of things by anyone you could pass in the street, it’s just a fact of life...

It doesn’t necessarily say if a person parties at the weekend that they couldn’t be outstanding employees as it doesn’t say anything about them in other areas..but to me, it’s no different from say, an advisor telling you to keep your house tidy, clutter free etc when you’re showing round prospective buyers..it doesn’t mean that it’s how it is all the time but if you want to ‘sell’ something to someone then it’s just a bit of sound advice to show it at its best...it just seems logical to not do anything to invite that judgement in the first place by setting a privacy option..that way, you’re doing something for yourself to increase your chances in what is quite a competitive market...

[Kizzy]

No because they are allegations kizzy. I work with many large organisations, am a member of various recruitment bodies etc and have never heard of any such practices ever. It's getting out of hand as people are suggesting people are getting sacked for posting photos of nights out and that is not the basis of the original post it is about damaging job prospects. As I have posted earlier dishonest sick days cost the economy £3 bn so employers naturally have to try to protect themselves.

I haven't suggested anyone is in danger of being sacked.
It is the assumption that new candidates can be vetted via social media I am opposed to.
I saw your statistics, where are the statistics to show this new endevour of screening potential employees via holiday snaps is working to reduce the cost to the economy?

[AnnieK]

I haven't suggested anyone is in danger of being sacked.
It is the assumption that new candidates can be vetted via social media I am opposed to.
I saw your statistics, where are the statistics to show this new endevour of screening potential employees via holiday snaps is working to reduce the cost to the economy?

Can I ask why you are opposed to this form of vetting kizzy? If you were employing someone and paying them a good salary would you not want to have all the information you could to ensure you are getting value for your money if that information is freely available? As I have said its not that much different from references before companies became too scared of litigation to make actual comments about work performance. You seem to be trivialising my comments by saying "screening candidates via holiday snaps" when I have given the examples of how employers view it further up this page, it's nothing to do holiday snaps.

[Livia]

Because of course their advisors are totally unbiased, impartial and don't have any links with multinational organisations and/or media institutions.

Again - how does a few pictures of someone drunk on a social networking site mean they're now a bonafide 'party boy'? Forget actually getting to know their true self in real life and in the workplace, or monitoring their progress if they're already in work, let's judge them on a few pictures of them out with their friends at the weekend. Sack the alcoholics! And ah yes that's it, start patronising and belittling people when there's nothing else to respond with. The classic approach :)




Yes, usually their advisors are unbiased, apart from being biased toward the industry or area on which they are advising. You're getting way off the topic though.

People don't have time to find the "true self" of someone, which is why they look at Facebook, check references and interview.

I am not patronising and belittling you, Jack. You have nothing else to offer this argument but a littany of reasons why someone should be able to party, post their pics on their facebook page, not have people judge them and give them a job over a more suitably settled, mature, discreet applicant. It's not going to happen.

[Omah]

That's not the issue though is it?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of this practice.

That is exactly the issue - people shouldn't publicly post what they don't want non-specific others to read.

[Omah]

This has gotten out of hand and way beyond the realms of the debate really. An employer is not going to sack someone because of random pictures. It is merely to do with having two candidates applying for the same job, both have the exact same qualifications, experience and skills. Candidate a posts on an open Facebook profile that they have had a large weekend, got pissed, took drugs so can feel a sickie coming on on Monday. Hates his ****ing job anyway they are all wankers. Candidate B does exactly the same at the weekend but doesn't post on Facebook it has privacy settings switched on. Employer can't decide between the two candidates so has a bit of a surf. Comes across candidate as Facebook profile, alarm bells ring employs candidate b. Who can blame them??

Not me ..... :nono:

Simples, ain't it ..... :pipe:

[Jack_]

Social networks blur reality and representation

By Anna Roitman on Monday, April 13th, 2009

Social networks have enabled human beings to have a platform for self-representation. Each person has his or her own account in one or two of them, into which they pour a collage of their mental-external- ideological-political-artistic self. It enables people to interact based on the data placed on each others pages and partake in many so called “social” activities. If one does not belong to a social network they can consider themselves out of the sphere of human interaction. In our busy world it has become an alternative way to keep your social life with as many people as you can at the same time. While aware of the many advantages of the social networks, and being an active user myself, I can not refrain from wondering about reality and the representation of it in those networks. The page contains the name and picture of a person that I seem to know, but is the representation of him or her the way they choose to do it on their web page or is it their true self? Moreover, these networks has driven information from reality into the virtual world and it is popping back into reality many times.

The best example for it is that many employers in western countries tend to search in a search engine for the perspective employees name to find their social network personal page, and this can many times determine if the person is hired or not, all depending on the representation of the perspective employee creates in the virtual world. In another case a boss caught staff members faking an illness by looking at their facebook status. The social network page is in fact your representation in the eyes of those who know you or those who do not know you. Despite the reality feature of familiar names and pictures, this is far from being reality.

Net predators and employer-employee relations are only small examples of how complex self-representation has become online. There are many dangers based on these “truths” and this generation is being raised to believe in truths as they appear on the personal newsfeed of a social network. One should transcend from the realm of the auto portrayal to understand that beyond it there is a person who can not be explained by pictures, videos or status lines. The essence of a person’s true spirit remains abstract and it is a riddle that will not be solved by looking at a mere representation, even if created by him.

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/social-networks-blur-reality-and-representation-2121/

Last bit in bold is particularly true. Great quote.

[the truth]

Ive employed probably around 50 people in the past 5 years and interviewed several hundred more....whilst Ive never sacked anyone directly because of facebook, lets just say some of the stuff theyve written on there has been part of the overall reasoning behind letting some people go. Its all part of a pattern of disrespectful behaviour. I wont go into specifics but lets just say some workers and drivers, think having an accident is funny? This level of idiocy is dangerous and unmanageable. In the mainstream news you wont get to hear the details of this stupidity, all you hear is soundbites often from some poor handpicked chap who claims there are no jobs, rubbish there are always jobs...But trust me this behaviour seems widespread to me. You dont hear much from employers as theyre too busy working 20 hours a day trying to keep their company afloat. (with the endless new laws from europe plus local government its getting ever more time consuming too) Goodness knows what theyre teaching these people in school. They dont even grasp the fact that the whole world can see how they behave especially on facebook and people with so little respect for their jobs, their employers, the safety of customers etc soon build a bad reputation and quickly being unemployable. Good people never tell badly behaved people, youre bad. They just avoid them for life, then all the badly behaved people are left with is fellow badly behaved people. Then they share their hard luck stories and wonder for the next 50 years why no one offers them a job.

[Livia]

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/social-networks-blur-reality-and-representation-2121/

Last bit in bold is particularly true. Great quote.

It's a three year old, blustering, self-important, wordy, overwritten, really rather poorly constructed blog. When Anna Roitman finally gets herself a proper job, let's hope she's toned down her copywriting to a less dictatorial level and put her social network pages on private.

[Omah]

http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57564134-285/nows-a-really-good-time-to-update-these-facebook-privacy-settings/

As details of Facebook's Graph Search unfolded this morning, users heaved a sigh of relief when they learned that Facebook would not be exposing our innermost privacies with its latest product -- the company would simply search the data we've already (willfully) shared and make it easily accessible to friends. Everything -- I mean, everything -- you've shared with friends on Facebook will be contributed to the index.

For example:

•Shared data from apps you use, like Spotify (it's not yet used in Graph Search, but will be in the near future)
•Tagged photos, including those with associated locations and times
•Interests, like music, TV shows, and blogs
•Facebook check-ins
•Your "About" section, including career, relationship status, and religious or political views

No matter how subtle the piece of information, friends can and will dig it up using Graph Search.

Graph Search opens doors to exploring our social network in an entirely new fashion, an opportunity that will ideally translate into richer real-life interactions. (And not just advanced Facebook stalking techniques.)

The positive implications of Graph Search are plentiful, but it's still wise to approach the tool with caution, tidying up your privacy and content before the tool goes live to everyone.

So as the reality of the situation sinks in, now is a perfect time to adjust your privacy settings, and hide content you've shared in the past so that friends are only uncovering the personal information you're willing to share.

1. Comb through your Activity Log

2. Limit the info apps are sharing

3. Prune your Likes

4. Update your About Me section

Graph Search will undoubtedly open doors to using Facebook in new ways, like job recruiting. One of the ways employers will do this is by searching for things like "People who live in Seattle and have worked at Amazon." The only way a recruiter will be able to find you is if you have elected to share that information in the About section of your Timeline.

Beyond that, you might also want to review other things you share about yourself, like religious and political views, along with your relationship status and location.

5. Be more cautious in the future

Graph Search is a positive addition to Facebook, so as you clean up your past posts and activity, don't hesitate to also add interests and likes, letting friends and acquaintances discover reasons to connect with you.

Sound advice ..... :idc:

[the truth]

its not just about being smart about keeping things private and covering up bad behaviour, its about behaving like a better more moral person 24 hours a day

[Nedusa]

its not just about being smart about keeping things private and covering up bad behaviour, its about behaving like a better more moral person 24 hours a day

It's also about not posting personal details about your life and you as a person on the Internet for literally millions of people to see. These are your own personal images which to people who know you can be appreciated in context, but to strangers they mean nothing other than what they depict.

So to be honest no do not upload personal info to the waiting masses it's none of their business and should remain none of their business ...!!!

[the truth]

It's also about not posting personal details about your life and you as a person on the Internet for literally millions of people to see. These are your own personal images which to people who know you can be appreciated in context, but to strangers they mean nothing other than what they depict.

So to be honest no do not upload personal info to the waiting masses it's none of their business and should remain none of their business ...!!!

its awful

[Kizzy]

]Can I ask why you are opposed to this form of vetting kizzy? [/B] If you were employing someone and paying them a good salary would you not want to have all the information you could to ensure you are getting value for your money if that information is freely available? As I have said its not that much different from references before companies became too scared of litigation to make actual comments about work performance. You seem to be trivialising my comments by saying "screening candidates via holiday snaps" when I have given the examples of how employers view it further up this page, it's nothing to do holiday snaps.

How many times can I say it annie, it is an invasion of privacy.
You are taking someone on to fill a position this to my mind does not entitle anyone to make judgements on what they do with their free time.
I am in no way trivialising your position on this, I just don't happen to agree it is possible to correctly assess the character of a candidate with information attained through social media.

[Kizzy]

Yes, usually their advisors are unbiased, apart from being biased toward the industry or area on which they are advising. You're getting way off the topic though.

People don't have time to find the "true self" of someone, which is why they look at Facebook, check references and interview.

I am not patronising and belittling you, Jack. You have nothing else to offer this argument but a littany of reasons why someone should be able to party, post their pics on their facebook page, not have people judge them and give them a job over a more suitably settled, mature, discreet applicant. It's not going to happen.

So they are very biased then, obviously.
I feel jack has provided sone very good examples of why this is an unworkable way of filtering staff, it is both unfair and underhanded.

[Livia]

So they are very biased then, obviously.
I feel jack has provided sone very good examples of why this is an unworkable way of filtering staff, it is both unfair and underhanded.

Well... yes. They are biased toward the area they actually work in or what would be the point? Jack implied it was all a scam, all getting in bed together... it's not like that at all. Anyway, that's not the topic here, is it. I only addressed it because Jack raised it. If you want to talk about MPs, this is the wrong thread.

I'm sure you would agree with Jack.

It's far from unworkable, and it is not underhanded to look at information that is accessible by any member of the public with an internet connection. They're not hacking into accounts, they're not following them on a night out, all they're doing is looking at stuff they have posted for the world to see. It's funny how people on here actually involved in recruiting staff and know the many pitfalls think there's nothing wrong with this.

[Livia]

How many times can I say it annie, it is an invasion of privacy.
You are taking someone on to fill a position this to my mind does not entitle anyone to make judgements on what they do with their free time.
I am in no way trivialising your position on this, I just don't happen to agree it is possible to correctly assess the character of a candidate with information attained through social media.

I'm going to field this one for Annie.

How can it be an invasion of privacy if the information is in the public domain? You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so.

You're not assessing someone's character just from Facebook or other social media, you're assessing it with a combination of things... interview, references, CV... accessible social media. People who recruit aren't generally stupid. They take many factors into account and the more factors they have, the more informed a decision they can make.

[Kizzy]

Well... yes. They are biased toward the area they actually work in or what would be the point? Jack implied it was all a scam, all getting in bed together... it's not like that at all. Anyway, that's not the topic here, is it. I only addressed it because Jack raised it. If you want to talk about MPs, this is the wrong thread.

I'm sure you would agree with Jack.

It's far from unworkable, and it is not underhanded to look at information that is accessible by any member of the public with an internet connection. They're not hacking into accounts, they're not following them on a night out, all they're doing is looking at stuff they have posted for the world to see. It's funny how people on here actually involved in recruiting staff and know the many pitfalls think there's nothing wrong with this.

You suggested jack was not experienced enough to comment on the subject, he countered with MP's are not experienced in the fields they make decisions in , neither are their advisors.
Which is true.
You then suggested they are biased, which would imply they are in bed together. That is true.
I did not raise MP's into this debate, jack did to reinforce his point.
Why are you sure I would agree with jack?
Once again I don't see how looking at a social media page can give accurate insight into the persona of a candidate.
You don't have to be in recruiting to ponder this surely?

[Kizzy]

I'm going to field this one for Annie.

How can it be an invasion of privacy if the information is in the public domain? You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so.

You're not assessing someone's character just from Facebook or other social media, you're assessing it with a combination of things... interview, references, CV... accessible social media. People who recruit aren't generally stupid. They take many factors into account and the more factors they have, the more informed a decision they can make.

The senario given earlier was that you had 2 equally suitable candidates on paper and at interview.
Therefore that would suggest that the ultimate decision rests on the candidates profile page?
Well ok if you want to be pedantic it's not an invasion of privacy, however I would say that it leads to misrepresentation and judgements being unfairly levied at some individuals.

[Livia]

You suggested jack was not experienced enough to comment on the subject, he countered with MP's are not experienced in the fields they make decisions in , neither are their advisors.
Which is true.
You then suggested they are biased, which would imply they are in bed together. That is true.
I did not raise MP's into this debate, jack did to reinforce his point.
Why are you sure I would agree with jack?
Once again I don't see how looking at a social media page can give accurate insight into the persona of a candidate.
You don't have to be in recruiting to ponder this surely?

Jack was just as off-topic as you are going round the houses with the MPs thing. That's not the topic here. If you want to talk about MPs and their advisors, start a thread.

You don't have to be in recruiting to ponder it, no. But I think everyone in recruiting or at least concerned with taking on staff in some way has said just about everything there is to say, haven't they? Public domain? Best person for the job? All that stuff?

[Livia]

The senario given earlier was that you had 2 equally suitable candidates on paper and at interview.
Therefore that would suggest that the ultimate decision rests on the candidates profile page?
Well ok if you want to be pedantic it's not an invasion of privacy, however I would say that it leads to misrepresentation and judgements being unfairly levied at some individuals.

Me correcting you on a point of law is not pedantic. Your continual struggle against, and grudging acceptance of, the fact that publicly accessible Facebook pages are not private property is pedantic.

The scenario you refer to is hypothetical. You are surmising that in a tie between two equally qualified and suitable candidates, the deciding factor would be social media, and I have not seen anyone who has any kind of handle on recruiting suggest that, there are far more factors to take into consideration. However, the candidate stupid enough to post pictures on a public site of them falling around drunk on a regular basis wouldn't sit well with me personally. I can't speak for anyone else.

[Kizzy]

Jack was just as off-topic as you are going round the houses with the MPs thing. That's not the topic here. If you want to talk about MPs and their advisors, start a thread.

You don't have to be in recruiting to ponder it, no. But I think everyone in recruiting or at least concerned with taking on staff in some way has said just about everything there is to say, haven't they? Public domain? Best person for the job? All that stuff?

It was a good point and well made actually, there are lots of people who make important decisions about all kinds of things but that analogy was apt.
They have said all they want to say in favour of this yes, but to have a debate you need two sides livia.
What about the points against, do they not deserve equal attention?

[Livia]

It was a good point and well made actually, there are lots of people who make important decisions about all kinds of things but that analogy was apt.
They have said all they want to say in favour of this yes, but to have a debate you need two sides livia.
What about the points against, do they not deserve equal attention?

Making ill-informed comments about MPs is not a good analogy, it's lashing out because you've nothing valid to say on the subject and so turn every argument around so you can moan about the government. You obviously know as much about MPs and their advisors as Jack does.

I understand what a debate is, Kizzy. I also understand what an argument is. There is a big difference. I think I have made my position very clear and posting the same thing backwards and forwards is not a debate Kizzy. So therefore I respectfully refer you to all my recent posts. They make my position quite clear and banging on about it for another ten exchanges isn't going to change that.

[Jack_]

Please drop the patronising attitude and indirect insults Livia. It says more about you than it does me and yet my age and maturity was the one brought to task earlier in the thread, ironically by you.

[Livia]

Please drop the patronising attitude and indirect insults Livia. It says more about you than it does me and yet my age and maturity was the one brought to task earlier in the thread, ironically by you.

I have made no indirect insults, Jack. I was quite clear and very direct. This is a debate. If you're touchy when people disagree and question your tenuous analogies, perhaps you should be in Chat and Games.

[Niamh.]

I have my FB set to private anyhow, only people who are friends with me can view my photos and wall posts etc. If you're happy to let anyone at all view your information on FB, why would a prospective employer looking at it be an issue?

[Jack_]

I have made no indirect insults, Jack. I was quite clear and very direct. This is a debate. If you're touchy when people disagree and question your tenuous analogies, perhaps you should be in Chat and Games.

Yes, because saying things like 'I'll come back to you in a few years when you've had some experience' as some petty get-out clause from the argument isn't patronising in the slightest. And calling me 'touchy' and telling me that I should 'be in Chat and Games' isn't either. Of course not.

I'm not touchy when people disagree in the slightest, I will more than happily fight my corner, go and read my posts in the BB section every series if you want examples of that, but if someone attempts to patronise me, I will call them out on it and just resort to the same thing if needs be. It drags the debate down and it's ultimately quite pathetic. But you keep at it my love, whatever floats your boat eh :)

[Livia]

Yes, because saying things like 'I'll come back to you in a few years when you've had some experience' as some petty get-out clause from the argument isn't patronising in the slightest. And calling me 'touchy' and telling me that I should 'be in Chat and Games' isn't either. Of course not.

I'm not touchy when people disagree in the slightest, I will more than happily fight my corner, go and read my posts in the BB section every series if you want examples of that, but if someone attempts to patronise me, I will call them out on it and just resort to the same thing if needs be. It drags the debate down and it's ultimately quite pathetic. But you keep at it my love, whatever floats your boat eh :)

Firstly Jack, what I actually said was: "I'd like to have this conversation with you when you are older and have a bit more life experience, have had a few interviews and maybe even sat on an interview panel or two. " Which is a little different to the way you've spun it. Isn't it.

You are very touchy. There is no need to "fight your corner". Try having a debate and seeing that you can disagree and make points without making a fight out of it, and without making rather tenuous analogies that detract from your point.

Your last sentence belittles you, frankly, and makes you look childish.

I have nothing more to add to this debate because it's turning into the usual ridiculous bunfight.

[Kizzy]

Making ill-informed comments about MPs is not a good analogy, it's lashing out because you've nothing valid to say on the subject and so turn every argument around so you can moan about the government. You obviously know as much about MPs and their advisors as Jack does.

I understand what a debate is, Kizzy. I also understand what an argument is. There is a big difference. I think I have made my position very clear and posting the same thing backwards and forwards is not a debate Kizzy. So therefore I respectfully refer you to all my recent posts. They make my position quite clear and banging on about it for another ten exchanges isn't going to change that.

I did not use the analogy in the first instance livia, I simply agreed with the comparison and have not mentioned the government at all.
You consantly harping back to that comment is counterproductive, once again this is a debate as far as I'm concerned.
You have made your position very clear thankyou, I hope I have too.

[Omah]

"I think the Ayes have it".

:pipe: